Search Results

Search found 14643 results on 586 pages for 'performance comparison'.

Page 103/586 | < Previous Page | 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110  | Next Page >

• TaskFactory.StartNew versus ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem

  - by Dan Tao

  Apparently the TaskFactory.StartNew method in .NET 4.0 is intended as a replacement for ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem (according to this post, anyway). My question is simple: does anyone know why? Does TaskFactory.StartNew have better performance? Does it use less memory? Or is it mainly for the additional functionality provided by the Task class? In the latter case, does StartNew possibly have worse performance than QueueUserWorkItem? It seems to me that StartNew would actually potentially use more memory than QueueUserWorkItem, since it returns a Task object with every call and I would expect that to result in more memory allocation. In any case, I'm interested to know which is more appropriate for a high-performance scenario.

  Read the article

• Is using ReaderWriterLockSlim a bad idea for long lived objects?

  - by uriDium

  I am trying to track down the reason that an application has periods of bad performance. I think that I have linked the bad performance to the points where Garbage Collection is run for Gen 2. I get a profiling tool (CLR Profiler) and was quite surprised by the results. In my test I was spawning and processing millions of objects. However the biggest hog of the Gen 2 space comes from something Called Threading.ReaderWriterCount which comes from System.Threading.ReaderWriterLockSlim::InitializeThreadCounts. I know nothing about the inner workings of ReaderWriterLockSlim but from what I am getting from the reports it is okay to have 1 or 2 Locks for longer lived objects but try and use other locks if you are going to have many smaller objects. Does anyone have any comments or experience with ReaderWriterLockSlim and/or what to look for if it seems that GC is killing application performance?

  Read the article

• Choosing between ExtJS and YUI based on application parameters.

  - by Kabeer

  Hello. I need help in taking call to choose between Ext JS and YUI libraries. Here are the key factors I have derived from my application requirements & development process: Complex, windows forms like controls Widgets, Layouts, Utilities Inter widget communication Easy to extend Easy to learn Intuitive & concise coding Strong exception handling Active support / community To update with upcoming technologies (HTML5, etc.) Skins & Themes to be easy to change Skins & Themes to support variety (a text box for different context to appear differently) Support & Utilities for standard protocols (XmlHttp, JSON) Good performance (responsive) Cost is not crucial, but I don't mind saving :)

  Read the article

• Choosing between ExtJS and YUI based of application parameters.

  - by Kabeer

  Hello. I need help in taking call to choose between Ext JS and YUI libraries. Here are the key factors I have derived from my application requirements & development process: Complex, windows forms like controls Widgets, Layouts, Utilities Inter widget communication Easy to extend Easy to learn Intuitive & concise coding Strong exception handling Active support / community To update with upcoming technologies (HTML5, etc.) Skins & Themes to be easy to change Skins & Themes to support variety (a text box for different context to appear differently) Support & Utilities for standard protocols (XmlHttp, JSON) Good performance (responsive) Cost is not crucial, but I don't mind saving :)

  Read the article

• What is the most effective way to test for combined keyboard arrow direction in ActionScript 3.0?

  - by Relee

  I need to monitor the direction a user is indicating using the four directional arrow keys on a keyboard in ActionScript 3.0 and I want to know the most efficient and effective way to do this. I've got several ideas of how to do it, and I'm not sure which would be best. I've found that when tracking Keyboard.KEY_DOWN events, the event repeats as long as the key is down, so the event function is repeated as well. This broke the method I had originally chosen to use, and the methods I've been able to think of require a lot of comparison operators. The best way I've been able to think of would be to use bitwise operators on a uint variable. Here's what I'm thinking var _direction:uint = 0x0; // The Current Direction That's the current direction variable. In the Keyboard.KEY_DOWN event handler I'll have it check what key is down, and use a bitwise AND operation to see if it's already toggled on, and if it's not, I'll add it in using basic addition. So, up would be 0x1 and down would be 0x2 and both up and down would be 0x3, for example. It would look something like this: private function keyDownHandler(e:KeyboardEvent):void { switch(e.keyCode) { case Keyboard.UP: if(!(_direction & 0x1)) _direction += 0x1; break; case Keyboard.DOWN: if(!(_direction & 0x2)) _direction += 0x2; break; // And So On... } } The keyUpHandler wouldn't need the if operation since it only triggers once when the key goes up, instead of repeating. I'll be able to test the current direction by using a switch statement labeled with numbers from 0 to 15 for the sixteen possible combinations. That should work, but it doesn't seem terribly elegant to me, given all of the if statements in the repeating keyDown event handler, and the huge switch. private function checkDirection():void { switch(_direction) { case 0: // Center break; case 1: // Up break; case 2: // Down break; case 3: // Up and Down break; case 4: // Left break; // And So On... } } Is there a better way to do this?

  Read the article

• how to store dynamically generated pages in html?

  - by Dharmik Bhandari

  I'm working on ASP.net MVC3 Web application that is facing scalability issue. For improving performance I want to store dynamically generated pages in html and serve them from generated html directly rather then querying database for each page request. I'm sure this will dramatically increase performance. Can any one share any hint / example / tutorial on how to do it? And what are challenges? I would also like to know how others are handling performance issue for large e-commerce sites with at-least thousand categories and 200k products with at least 200-500 concurrent visitors? What are the best approaches? Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• Would using a MemoryMappedFile for IPC across AppDomains be faster than WCF/named pipes?

  - by Morten Mertner

  Context: I am loading and executing untrusted code in a separate AppDomain and am currently communicating between the two using WCF (using named pipes as the underlying transport). I am exchanging relatively simple object graphs using a reasonably coarse-grained API, but would like to use a more fine-grained API if it does not cost me performance-wise. I've noticed that 4.0 adds a MemoryMappedFile class (which doesn't need a physical file, so could be entirely memory based). What kind of performance gains could I expect to see (if any) by using this new class? I know that it would take some "infrastructure code" to get the request/response behavior of WCF, but for now I'm only interested in the performance difference.

  Read the article

• CoreData and many NSArrayController

  - by unixo

  In my CoreData Application, I've an outline view on left of main window, acting as source list (like iTunes); on the right I display a proper view, based on outline selection. Each view has its components, such as table view, connected to array controller, owned by the specific view. Very often different views display same data, for example, a table view of the same entity. From a performance point of view, is better to have a single array controller per entity and share it between all views or does CoreData cache avoid memory waste?

  Read the article

• Do bit operations cause programs to run slower?

  - by flashnik

  I'm dealing with a problem which needs to work with a lot of data. Currently its values are represented as an unsigned int. I know that real values do not exceed a limit of 1000. Questions I can use unsigned short to store it. An upside to this is that it'll use less storage space to store the value. Will performance suffer? If I decided to store data as short but all the calling functions use int, it's recognized that I need to convert between these datatypes when storing or extracting values. Will performance suffer? Will the loss in performance be dramatic? If I decided to not use short but just 10 bits packed into an array of unsigned int. What will happen in this case comparing with previous ones?

  Read the article

• MS SQL 2005 - Understanding ouput of DBCC SHOWCONTIG

  - by user169743

  I'm seeing some slow performance on a MS SQL 2005 database. I've been doing some research regarding MS SQL performance but I'm having difficulty fully understanding the output of SHOWCONTIG and would be very grateful if someone could have a look and offer some suggestions to improve performance. TABLE level scan performed. Pages Scanned................................: 19348 Extents Scanned..............................: 2427 Extent Switches..............................: 3829 Avg. Pages per Extent........................: 8.0 Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count].......: 63.16% [2419:3830] Logical Scan Fragmentation ..................: 8.40% Extent Scan Fragmentation ...................: 35.15% Avg. Bytes Free per Page.....................: 938.1 Avg. Page Density (full).....................: 88.41%

  Read the article

• SQL Server 2005 - Understanding ouput of DBCC SHOWCONTIG

  - by user169743

  I'm seeing some slow performance on a SQL Server 2005 database. I've been doing some research regarding SQL Server performance but I'm having difficulty fully understanding the output of SHOWCONTIG and would be very grateful if someone could have a look and offer some suggestions to improve performance. TABLE level scan performed. Pages Scanned................................: 19348 Extents Scanned..............................: 2427 Extent Switches..............................: 3829 Avg. Pages per Extent........................: 8.0 Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count].......: 63.16% [2419:3830] Logical Scan Fragmentation ..................: 8.40% Extent Scan Fragmentation ...................: 35.15% Avg. Bytes Free per Page.....................: 938.1 Avg. Page Density (full).....................: 88.41%

  Read the article

• Common causes of slow performing jQuery and how to optimize the code?

  - by Polaris878

  Hello, This might be a bit of a vague or general question, but I figure it might be able to serve as a good resource for other jQuery-ers. I'm interested in common causes of slow running jQuery and how to optimize these cases. We have a good amount of jQuery/JavaScript performing actions on our page... and performance can really suffer with a large number off elements. What are some obvious performance pitfalls you know of with jQuery? What are some general optimizations a jQuery-er can do to squeeze every last bit of performance out of his/her scripts? One example: a developer may use a selector to access an element that is slower than some other way. Thanks

  Read the article

• C++0x optimizing compiler quality

  - by aaa

  hello. I do some heavy numbercrunching and for me floating-point performance is very important. I like performance of Intel compiler very much and quite content with quality of assembly it produces. I am thinking at some point to try C++0x mainly for sugar parts, like auto, initializer list, etc, but also lambdas. at this point I use those features in regular C++ by the means of boost. How good of assembly code do compilers C++0x generate? specifically Intel and gcc compilers. Do they produce SSE code? is performance comparable to C++? are there any benchmarks? My Google search did not reveal much. Thank you.

  Read the article

• Python 3 order of testing undetermined

  - by user578598

  string='a' p=0 while (p <len(string)) & (string[p]!='c') : p +=1 print ('the end but the process already died ') while (p <1) & (string[p]!='c') : IndexError: string index out of range I want to test a condition up to the end of a string (example string length=1) why are both parts of the and executed is the condition is already false! as long as p < len(string). the second part does not even need executing. if it does a lot of performance can be lost

  Read the article

• Writing at the end of file

  - by user342534

  Hi, I'm working on a system that requires high file I/O performance (with C#). Basically, I'm filling up large files (~100MB) from the start of the file until the end of the file. Every ~5 seconds I'm adding ~5MB to the file (sequentially from the start of the file), on every bulk I'm flushing the stream. Every few minutes I need to update a structure which I write at the end of the file (some kind of metadata). When flushing each one of the bulks I have no performance issue. However, when updating the metadata at the end of the file I get really low performance. My guess is that when creating the file (which also should be done extra fast), the file doesn't really allocates the entire 100MB on the disk and when I flush the metadata it must allocates all space until the end of file. Guys/Girls, any Idea how I can overcome this problem? Thanks a lot!

  Read the article

• Cost Comparison Hard Disk Drive to Solid State Drive on Price per Gigabyte - dispelling a myth!

  - by tonyrogerson

  It is often said that Hard Disk Drive storage is significantly cheaper per GiByte than Solid State Devices – this is wholly inaccurate within the database space. People need to look at the cost of the complete solution and not just a single component part in isolation to what is really required to meet the business requirement. Buying a single Hitachi Ultrastar 600GB 3.5” SAS 15Krpm hard disk drive will cost approximately £239.60 (http://scan.co.uk, 22nd March 2012) compared to an OCZ 600GB Z-Drive R4 CM84 PCIe costing £2,316.54 (http://scan.co.uk, 22nd March 2012); I’ve not included FusionIO ioDrive because there is no public pricing available for it – something I never understand and personally when companies do this I immediately think what are they hiding, luckily in FusionIO’s case the product is proven though is expensive compared to OCZ enterprise offerings. On the face of it the single 15Krpm hard disk has a price per GB of £0.39, the SSD £3.86; this is what you will see in the press and this is what sales people will use in comparing the two technologies – do not be fooled by this bullshit people! What is the requirement? The requirement is the database will have a static size of 400GB kept static through archiving so growth and trim will balance the database size, the client requires resilience, there will be several hundred call centre staff querying the database where queries will read a small amount of data but there will be no hot spot in the data so the randomness will come across the entire 400GB of the database, estimates predict that the IOps required will be approximately 4,000IOps at peak times, because it’s a call centre system the IO latency is important and must remain below 5ms per IO. The balance between read and write is 70% read, 30% write. The requirement is now defined and we have three of the most important pieces of the puzzle – space required, estimated IOps and maximum latency per IO. Something to consider with regard SQL Server; write activity requires synchronous IO to the storage media specifically the transaction log; that means the write thread will wait until the IO is completed and hardened off until the thread can continue execution, the requirement has stated that 30% of the system activity will be write so we can expect a high amount of synchronous activity. The hardware solution needs to be defined; two possible solutions: hard disk or solid state based; the real question now is how many hard disks are required to achieve the IO throughput, the latency and resilience, ditto for the solid state. Hard Drive solution On a test on an HP DL380, P410i controller using IOMeter against a single 15Krpm 146GB SAS drive, the throughput given on a transfer size of 8KiB against a 40GiB file on a freshly formatted disk where the partition is the only partition on the disk thus the 40GiB file is on the outer edge of the drive so more sectors can be read before head movement is required: For 100% sequential IO at a queue depth of 16 with 8 worker threads 43,537 IOps at an average latency of 2.93ms (340 MiB/s), for 100% random IO at the same queue depth and worker threads 3,733 IOps at an average latency of 34.06ms (34 MiB/s). The same test was done on the same disk but the test file was 130GiB: For 100% sequential IO at a queue depth of 16 with 8 worker threads 43,537 IOps at an average latency of 2.93ms (340 MiB/s), for 100% random IO at the same queue depth and worker threads 528 IOps at an average latency of 217.49ms (4 MiB/s). From the result it is clear random performance gets worse as the disk fills up – I’m currently writing an article on short stroking which will cover this in detail. Given the work load is random in nature looking at the random performance of the single drive when only 40 GiB of the 146 GB is used gives near the IOps required but the latency is way out. Luckily I have tested 6 x 15Krpm 146GB SAS 15Krpm drives in a RAID 0 using the same test methodology, for the same test above on a 130 GiB for each drive added the performance boost is near linear, for each drive added throughput goes up by 5 MiB/sec, IOps by 700 IOps and latency reducing nearly 50% per drive added (172 ms, 94 ms, 65 ms, 47 ms, 37 ms, 30 ms). This is because the same 130GiB is spread out more as you add drives 130 / 1, 130 / 2, 130 / 3 etc. so implicit short stroking is occurring because there is less file on each drive so less head movement required. The best latency is still 30 ms but we have the IOps required now, but that’s on a 130GiB file and not the 400GiB we need. Some reality check here: a) the drive randomness is more likely to be 50/50 and not a full 100% but the above has highlighted the effect randomness has on the drive and the more a drive fills with data the worse the effect. For argument sake let us assume that for the given workload we need 8 disks to do the job, for resilience reasons we will need 16 because we need to RAID 1+0 them in order to get the throughput and the resilience, RAID 5 would degrade performance. Cost for hard drives: 16 x £239.60 = £3,833.60 For the hard drives we will need disk controllers and a separate external disk array because the likelihood is that the server itself won’t take the drives, a quick spec off DELL for a PowerVault MD1220 which gives the dual pathing with 16 disks 146GB 15Krpm 2.5” disks is priced at £7,438.00, note its probably more once we had two controller cards to sit in the server in, racking etc. Minimum cost taking the DELL quote as an example is therefore: {Cost of Hardware} / {Storage Required} £7,438.60 / 400 = £18.595 per GB £18.59 per GiB is a far cry from the £0.39 we had been told by the salesman and the myth. Yes, the storage array is composed of 16 x 146 disks in RAID 10 (therefore 8 usable) giving an effective usable storage availability of 1168GB but the actual storage requirement is only 400 and the extra disks have had to be purchased to get the  IOps up. Solid State Drive solution A single card significantly exceeds the IOps and latency required, for resilience two will be required. ( £2,316.54 * 2 ) / 400 = £11.58 per GB With the SSD solution only two PCIe sockets are required, no external disk units, no additional controllers, no redundant controllers etc. Conclusion I hope by showing you an example that the myth that hard disk drives are cheaper per GiB than Solid State has now been dispelled - £11.58 per GB for SSD compared to £18.59 for Hard Disk. I’ve not even touched on the running costs, compare the costs of running 18 hard disks, that’s a lot of heat and power compared to two PCIe cards!Just a quick note: I've left a fair amount of information out due to this being a blog! If in doubt, email me :)I'll also deal with the myth that SSD's wear out at a later date as well - that's just way over done still, yes, 5 years ago, but now - no.

  Read the article

• USB 3 vs. eSATA

  - by Robert Nickens

  Will the full speed advantages of the future USB 3.0 be negated by the fact the most HD being mass produced are SATA 3? If so, what would you suggest a person do? For performance reasons go with eSATA or 1394 for external HDs. Why spend the money on USB 3.0 next year,even if the prices come down quickly. Given that SATA 6 is not here and may be a while.

  Read the article

• how to increase ram allocation for maya mac osx

  - by George Profenza

  Hi, Having a bitmap displayed as a blueprint and doing poly modeling gets slow in maya2010. Any options to feed it more ram ? Any performance tips ? N00b here :) Thanks, George

  Read the article

• "Task Manager" addon for Firefox?

  - by eidylon

  Hello all... I'm wondering if there is an addon for Firefox that would basically replicate the performance monitoring of Task Manager in Windows - seeing memory and cpu used - but for all the tabs in your current Firefox session. I want to be able to see which tabs are taking up the most memory or hitting hardest on the CPU. Thanks in advance!

  Read the article

• ASPNET WMI class not available

  - by Nexus

  I need to extract the ASPNET\Requests Queued performance counter from some IIS servers via WMI. The WMI class for this sort of thing appears to be contained in Win32_PerfFormattedData_ASPNET_ASPNET. I've queried all available classes in root\cimv2 on my Win 2003/IIS6 servers, and it's not listed. It is, however, available on an unrelated Win2008/IIS7 box (which is interesting but doesn't really help me much) What gives? Why is this WMI class not available on my Windows 2003 servers?

  Read the article

• IRP_MJ_WRITE latency up to 15 seconds

  - by racitup

  We have written an application that performs small (22kB) writes to multiple files at once (one thread performing asynchronous queued writes to multiple locations on behalf of other threads) on the same local volume (RAID1). 99.9% of the writes are low-latency but occasionally (maybe every minute or two) we get one or two huge latency writes (I have seen 10 seconds and above) without any real explanation. Platform: Win2003 Server with NTFS. Monitoring: Sysinternals Process Monitor (see link below) and our own application logging. We have tried multiple things to try and solve this that have been gleaned from a few websites, e.g.: Making the first part of file names unique to aid 8.3 name generation Writing files to multiple directories Changing Intel Disk Write Caching Windows File/Printer Sharing Minimize memory used Balance Maximize data throughput for file sharing Maximize data throughput for network applications System-Advanced-Performance-Advanced NtfsDisableLastAccessUpdate - use fsutil behavior set disablelastaccess 1 disable 8.3 name generation - use "fsutil behavior set disable8dot3 1" + restart Enable a large size file system cache Disable paging of the kernel code IO Page Lock Limit Turn Off (or On) the Indexing Service But nothing seems to make much difference. There's a whole host of things we haven't tried yet but we wondered if anyone had come across the same problem, a reason and a solution (programmatic or not)? We can reproduce the problem using IOMeter and a simple setup: Start IOMeter and remove all but the first worker thread in 'Topology' using the disconnect button. Select the Worker thread and put a cross in the box next to the disk you want to use in the Disk Targets tab and put '2000000' in Maximum Disk Size (NOTE: must have at least 1GB free space; sector size is 512 bytes) Next create a new access specification and add it to the worker thread: Transfer Request Size = 22kB 100% Sequential Percent of Access Spec = 100% Percent Read/Write = 100% Write Change Results Display Update Frequency to 5 seconds, Test Setup Run Time to 20 seconds and both 'Number of Workers to Spawn Automatically' settings to zero. Select the Worker Thread in the Topology panel and hit the Duplicate Worker button 59 times to create 60 threads with identical settings. Hit the 'Go' button (green flag) and monitor the Results tab. The 'Maximum I/O Response Time (ms)' always hits at least 3500 on our machine. Our machine isn't exactly slow (Xeon 8 core rack server with 4GB and onboard RAID). I'd be interested to see what other people get. We have a feeling it might be something to do with the NTFS filesystem (ours is currently 75% full of fragmented files) and we are going to try a few things around this principle. But it is also related to disk performance since we don't see it on a RAMDisk and it's not as severe on a RAID10 array. Any help is much appreciated. Richard Right-click and select 'Open Link in New Tab': ProcMon Result

  Read the article

• Why does jmeter not work?

  - by Foolish

  I use jmeter to record requests and then perform a performance test after it records all the requests with proxy server. These requests contain a post form. After that I run the test cases, but I found the post form doesn't work -- it cannot create a record in the website's database automatically. But before that I used Webload and everything was OK. What's the problem? What can I do for this?

  Read the article

• Any reason not to disable Windows kernel paging?

  - by Nathaniel

  So I'm planning on eventually going to 2 GB (mobo max) RAM from 1 GB, and I want to disable kernel paging once I do, because I've heard it can give a performance boost (and that I believe). Any reason not to do it or any general thoughts about it? Edit: for clarification, this is not disabling general RAM paging. This is disabling having kernel memory paged (or at least parts of it, as Charlls noted).

  Read the article

• How to correctly partition usb flash drive and which filesystem to choose considering wear leveling?

  - by random1

  Two problems. First one: how to partition the flash drive? I shouldn't need to do this, but I'm no longer sure if my partition is properly aligned since I was forced to delete and create a new partition table after gparted complained when I tried to format the drive from FAT to ext4. The naive answer would be to say "just use default and everything is going to be alright". However if you read the following links you'll know things are not that simple: https://lwn.net/Articles/428584/ and http://linux-howto-guide.blogspot.com/2009/10/increase-usb-flash-drive-write-speed.html Then there is also the issue of cylinders, heads and sectors. Currently I get this: $sfdisk -l -uM /dev/sdd Disk /dev/sdd: 30147 cylinders, 64 heads, 32 sectors/track Warning: The partition table looks like it was made for C/H/S=*/255/63 (instead of 30147/64/32). For this listing I'll assume that geometry. Units = mebibytes of 1048576 bytes, blocks of 1024 bytes, counting from 0 Device Boot Start End MiB #blocks Id System /dev/sdd1 1 30146 30146 30869504 83 Linux $fdisk -l /dev/sdd Disk /dev/sdd: 31.6 GB, 31611420672 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 3843 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes Disk identifier: 0x00010c28 So from my current understanding I should align partitions at 4 MiB (currently it's at 1 MiB). But I still don't know how to set the heads and sectors properly for my device. Second problem: file system. From the benchmarks I saw ext4 provides the best performance, however there is the issue of wear leveling. How can I know that my Transcend JetFlash 700's microcontroller provides for wear leveling? Or will I just be killing my drive faster? I've seen a lot of posts on the web saying don't worry the newer drives already take care of that. But I've never seen a single piece of backed evidence of that and at some point people start mixing SSD with USB flash drives technology. The safe option would be to go for ext2, however a serious of tests that I performed showed horrible performance!!! These values are from a real scenario and not some synthetic test: 42 files: 3,429,415,284 bytes copied to flash drive original fat32: 15.1 MiB/s ext4 after new partition table: 10.2 MiB/s ext2 after new partition table: 1.9 MiB/s Please read the links that I posted above before answering. I would also be interested in answers backed up with some references because a lot is said and re-said but then it lacks facts. Thank you for the help.

  Read the article

• Android emulator performance on linux

  - by Rado

  I installed the android SDK and eclipse plugin on my laptop, but I was surprised to find out that the emulator eats up 100% of one of my cpu cores. I have exactly the same setup on a desktop machine that does not have this issue. Both computers are running arch linux and both were updated yesterday. Granted, the desktop has better hardware than the laptop, but I was expecting to get closer to 50% cpu usage than 100% on the laptop. Both android virtual devices have the same specs: CPU: ARM Target: Android 2.3.3 - API Level 10 Skin: WVGA800 SD Card: 512M hw.lcd.density: 240 vm.heapSize: 24 hw.ramSize: 256 Laptop host has Intel Core 2 T7200 @ 2GHz cpu with 2Gb RAM. Desktop host has AMD Phenom II X4 940 @ 3GHz cpu with 8Gb RAM. The android emulator uses only 1 core and here are the CPU usage results: Laptop: Cpu0 : 22.8%us, 76.5%sy, 0.0%ni, 0.3%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.3%si, 0.0%st Cpu1 : 11.2%us, 2.4%sy, 0.0%ni, 86.4%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st Mem: 2055484k total, 1860304k used, 195180k free, 5276k buffers Swap: 2000088k total, 106872k used, 1893216k free, 350780k cached PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 2026 xyz 20 0 396m 207m 7192 R 100 10.3 4:11.58 emulator-arm Desktop: Cpu0 : 0.7%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 99.3%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st Cpu1 : 1.3%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 98.7%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st Cpu2 : 5.0%us, 1.3%sy, 0.0%ni, 91.9%id, 1.7%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st Cpu3 : 0.3%us, 0.3%sy, 0.0%ni, 99.3%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st Mem: 7666324k total, 6506808k used, 1159516k free, 1650960k buffers Swap: 8988348k total, 0k used, 8988348k free, 2867300k cached PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 2811 xyz 20 0 392m 220m 6276 S 8 2.9 0:33.58 emulator-arm Is there any way I can improve the emulator performance on the laptop? [UPDATE] I ran the emulator with the same settings, on the same laptop under Win7 and after starting up, it didn't use 100% of a CPU core unlike under linux. Also, I tried running the emulator from a terminal in Linux and I get this message when I don't get it under the desktop Linux host: Could not configure '/dev/hpet' to have a 1024Hz timer. This is not a fatal error, but for better emulation accuracy type: 'echo 1024 /proc/sys/dev/hpet/max-user-freq' as root. I'm not really familiar with rtc or hpet, but it doesn't seem that max-user-freq setting does anything, I still get the same warning.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110  | Next Page >